Stevan log

[voluntarySquatship]

Fuck you. Choose Love.

I've followed the logs of some of Mike T's trainees and they are - literally - using some of the highest session volumes I've ever encountered. So...I'm not sure what to make of this no-context-given quote.

I'm aware of that. I never said anything against high volumes but the way I see it, Mike uses high volumes as a tool while others use it for the sake of doing more volume because "more is better", thresholds, "developing" strength (not displaying) etc. I'm not saying everyone but Mike T. is doing it wrong but I've seen it enough times to call it "volume culture".

I'm guessing that he's challenging the idea of progressive overload via constantly increasing volume (like literally week-to-week increasing volume for "progressive overload"). I've heard him rail against this, and I totally agree with him. Once you've dialed-in on session-to-session recoverable volume...you can stay at that volume for many months. You just have to get loading right.

Well yeah but I can certainly see how Israetelian way of progressive overload can work for hypertrophy. Israetel doesn't let the weight drop tho.

Have someone describe "progressive overload" without using the words "progressive" or "overload". Do they end up referencing the organism relative to stimulus at some arbitrary TIME= 0...or TIME = CURRENT?

Both I guess...if I understand your rant. The key is in progressive overload events though.

[John Hanley]

overload events

Now you're just trolling.

Good luck with your current overload event

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Seems like you're being totally arbitrary. Or maybe willfully contrarian against your own distorted concepts of others' concepts of "volume".

You could just choose love.

He is.

Stevan, if you want to keep your log here for your own records- that's cool, man. However, if you're going to post inflammatory stuff about us and others you should do that elsewhere. We simply don't need that and you should direct your time towards more productive things....like training.

Perhaps the Starting Strength boards would be more appropriate

[John Hanley]

Shoulda chose love

[voluntarySquatship]

It's Hanley's fault. I'll keep the inflammation down. Luckily no one reads my logs anyways and I'm mainly ranting to provoke Hanley so we can insult each other.

2/1/19
bw 98.2

half squats to pins 124 x 4 x 3, I could not find 2.5kg plates in the whole gym lol. Whatever, absolute weight on the bar doesn't matter.

binch aparatus 96.5 x 5 x 4, I got unsolicited but probably productive advice for my benches. The advice was basically to rest less between my reps. I'm taking too long to exhale and take my breath between reps. People should not have problems with unsolicited advice, really. If it's dumb, just say: "that's a good point, thanks" and move on.

deficit pulls 110 x 5 x 3

cable curlz 25 x 14, no time for 2nd set, but that's a cable curls PR!!

[John Hanley]

It's Hanley's fault. I'll keep the inflammation down. Luckily no one reads my logs anyways and I'm mainly ranting to provoke Hanley so we can insult each other

Your half-squat is my bench warm--up

Choose Volume.

[voluntarySquatship]

Your half-squat is my bench warm--up

That's brilliant. I bet no one ever said that (that specific combo of exercises).

[voluntarySquatship]

Forgot to put this in my log entry.
I've been listening to Mike's coaching calls (I know) when I'm not doing anything. Mostly repetitive but a few gems can be found here and there, like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhRf...L9_iJ0YVc6ffLE

Momentum in overload events is probably a pretty big deal.

Here's more provocation for John (this one is massive):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jiOUR6zdCg

Personal growth from 5's @ 10, I'm dying. This might be too much. Sorry John.

[John Hanley]

A variation on something I've mentioned before:

You want personal growth? Train for a 400m or 800m...that's fucking personal growth.

Jesus might visit you on an RPE 10 set, but he spits in your face and then shows you the topless selfies your wife sent him in the last 50 meters of a 400m.

[voluntarySquatship]

Lmao. Another gem. Luckily I know what triggers u

[voluntarySquatship]

So aside binge watching everything Tuchscherer put out, I've been exposing myself to Broderick Chavez. Some would say one of the best guys when it comes to steroid use and contest prep for bodybuilding. He has a great video on IGTV:
https://www.instagram.com/tv/BsZUPNI...d=3b9ac76kz7kx

This is something Austin will probably appreciate.

edit: As an aside note if anyone is wondering why I'm listening to a expert on steroids, it's because I really believe in listening and reading everything you can. If you think GPP is important for your competition lifts, you should listen to bodybuilders for your knowledge base. I like bodybuilders.

edit2: Oh shit another great video by Broderick:
https://www.instagram.com/tv/Brqam7w...=1s989yu9zuw2r

It pretty much summarizes my opinions on science with regards to training. Science HAS TO BE SPECIFIC. Let me give you an example of that. Schoenfeld 45 sets/week study. On top of my head I think they trained with 8-12RM loads with 90 seconds rest for 5 sets (in the highest volume group.) on 5-6 compound exercises. Who in the world trains like that? What load do you put on a 5th set of squats with 90sec rest and 8-12 reps? Air squats? They measured biceps, triceps and vastus lateralis if I'm not mistaken with US. Ok, what happens with pecs, lats and other muscles? Would bigger arms be a fair trade off for potentially no increase in other muscles? We don't know because they didn't measure it. So, can we conclude that more is better from that study? Unless your goal is big arms and nothing else, you train with 90sec rest periods with 5-6 exercises in a workout 3x/week, no, more is not better. Everything else is a guessing game.

If someone provides a NON-SPECIFIC evidence for their claims, I think it's quite legitimate to ask for evidence that shows that the non-specific evidence can be applied to a considerable extent to the specific application in question. I have a lot of appreciation for science but as you can see, I have a lot of critiques for "evidence based" crowd, especially the ones that are taking rather radical approach i.e. if it's not evidented in science, it doesn't exist. Since most of the studies are done like Schoenfeld's and worse but no one really trains that way, this brings up the question: who in the fitness world is trully and honestly evidence based?

Same goes for strongest guys are the biggest therefore powerlifters should train like bodybuilders^TM type of thinking. The problem is in the "therefore". It contains a wild number of questionable premises and assumptions.

If this is also inflammatory, let me know.

[John Hanley]

Perelli CJ , Longfellow MC. Efficacy of Evidence-Based Practice in Development of Peak Power and Maximal Strength. Scandinavian Journal of Exercise Physiology. 2017 Oct 13.

I was strictly "evidence-based" until I read Dr. Perelli's landmark work. Compelling evidence against evidence.

[voluntarySquatship]

Can you link

[voluntarySquatship]

Scandinavian Journal of Exercise Physiology. I see where this is going. Props to exercise physiologists but usefulness for actual training is NULL. Maybe in 100 years

[John Hanley]

Oh...I was just fucking around. Made up the study....and the journal.

I just liked the irony of evidence against the efficacy of strict evidence-based practice.

[voluntarySquatship]

2/4/19
bw 99, lots and lots of walking over the weekend

squats up to 132.5 x 1, testing the waters with heavier weights, pain 0.01/10, I will reintroduce comp squats on wednesdays, and "run out" the half squats

half squats to pins 127.5 x 4 x2

press shitshow, couldn't get 55 above the eyes. Pushing the bar forward, again. I'm swapping this exercise with incline benches. I believe I am largely limited with my technique and improvements in technique are probably limited by 1.5x/week frequency and I don't want to specialize in press when bench press is progressing or go into the gym more time per week. It seems I learned it wrong and now it's hard to unlearn the wrong way. That makes trying to progress on this exercise essentially waste of time, at this moment. I will incorporate some very light presses at the start of the workout as warmup for my benches just to maintain and potentially improve my technique. If people can stretch out the bands for external rotators, I can press for a few minutes. Looking back retrospectively I wish I:
1. Correctly identified the problem immediately
2. Was a bit more conservative with the progression after the reset

cable curlz 25 x 12, 30 x 5, gonna swap these soon or throw out biceps work completely, we'll see

incline benches getting familiar with the movement with very light weights

deadlift 137.5 x 4, 125 x 4, these were easy, satisfied with deadlift progress, I had a lot of excuses not to train the deadlift in the past, hopefully now it will go above these embarrassing levels.

[voluntarySquatship]

2/6/19
bw 99.5, maintenance soon

squats 100 x 7, 105 x 7, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy work

binch apparatus 96.5 x 5 x 4, repeated, 3rd set great, 4th set sloppy

lat pulls 80 x 12, 11, 11

Light cgbp practice

[voluntarySquatship]

8/2/19
bw 99

press practice, worked up to 52.5x1

half squats to pins 130 x 4 x 3, I think these have plenty of room to grow, I warmup with regular squats and then do 2 warmup sets of pin squats before workset. Strained my groin on regular squats warmups. Lesson learned: there's no point in aggressive lockouts on a warmup.

cgbp 60 x 4 x 5, plenty of light practice

deficit pulls 115 x 5 x 3, these finally feel natural

Cable curlz 30 x 6 x 2, chasing that cable curl strength. Speaking of Chasing Curls. I miss you. Are you still 200lbs?

Tired of biceps work. Need ideas for fluff.

[voluntarySquatship]

11/2/19
bw ~99

press warmup/practice

half squats to pins 132.5 x 4 x 2

binch apparatus 97.5 x 5, 97.5 x 3 x 4, running these out. Waiting as long as possible to make gains. Not sure if 6x3 is a better option.

pull 140 x 4, 125 x 4

db curlz 17 x 11, gonna do 1 set of curls going forward. Gotta realize gains I already have. PR on the first day? Way below my MEV, right?

Sleepy workout. Took caffeine right before the workout so the effect was probably delayed.

[John Hanley]

Half-Squat E1RM = 161.5853659.

Nahce.

[voluntarySquatship]

My RPE table says differently. It contains non linear differential equations describing connections between intensity ranges with initial conditions based on your training history and genetic profile.

[voluntarySquatship]

FarmerBill wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:33 pm
Hello,
I've heard it claimed many times, most recently by Reynolds and Hambrick on their podcast, that lifters who are weaker in absolute terms must train at higher percentages of their 1rm than stronger lifters in order to drive progress. To make examples of limiting cases, an elderly woman whose max squat is 100 lbs can't benefit from training at say, 65-75 lbs in the same way that a guy who squats 600 will from training at 390-400 lbs. (65-75% of 1rm in both cases). At least, that's how I understand the claim.

Is there any evidence to back this up? Or, what do the more open-minded folks around here think of this notion?

I think it has to do with muscle fiber fatiguability characteristics. People with a very high proportion of type I muscle fiber will probably not be terribly strong relative to "normal" or explosive people but they'll be able to do crazy amounts of submax work (like my 5rm relative intensity is their 8rm).

But I absolutely do not think they have some store of untapped motor units that need high relative intensities to be properly recruited/trained. Their work capacities at matched relative intensities just look very, very different than mine.

I also don't think neuromuscular efficiency plays a huge role in non-rate limited motor programs. The confounder is that very neuromuscularly efficient people tend to hypertrophy easily. IOW my "slow" lean-mass twin will be as strong as me, but probably had to work much harder to get as big (and the poor fucker can't dunk).

Anyway, yeah, fatiugability characteristics.

Very nahce, very nice John Hanley .

Tell me what you think about the image below. The vertical line in the slow-fast twitch continuum represents an average fiber type or an average fiber characteristic if you will. I probably exaggerated the "speed" part. If it's dumb and retarded, tell me it's dumb and retarded.

[John Hanley]

I don't think I understand it. Are those force-time curves on the bottom?

[voluntarySquatship]

You can "skew" your genetics to the left or right but it is going to follow the logarithmic curve.

[John Hanley]

Oh, I see. That makes sense.

And - yeah - for the y = a ln x "speed skew curve", a would be a really depressing fraction.